The European Commission has imposed a €561 million fine on Microsoft for failing to comply with its commitments to offer users a browser choice screen enabling them to easily choose their preferred web browser. In 2009, the Commission had made these commitments legally binding on Microsoft until 2014 (see IP/09/1941). In today's decision, the Commission finds that Microsoft failed to roll out the browser choice screen with its Windows 7 Service Pack 1 from May 2011 until July 2012. 15 million Windows users in the EU therefore did not see the choice screen during this period. Microsoft has acknowledged that the choice screen was not displayed during that time.

The fine brings the Commission's total looting of Microsoft on antitrust violations to around $2.8B USD. Microsoft's latest violation traces back in 2009, during the launch of Windows 7. At the time, Microsoft held a dominant position in the browser market thanks to its bundling of its Internet Explorer (IE) browser with its market-leading operating system.

And the approach worked. It appeared that the most powerful thing driving Microsoft's market share was inertia; most users simply never bothered to download or try other browsers, sticking with the one that was built in. Once they were presented with a choice, they jumped ship from IE.

Microsoft clearly wasn't happy with this, but it promised to comply with the EU ruling.

Today Microsoft is in third place in the PC browser market with only about 24 percent of the market, behind Google 35 percent and Mozilla's 29 percent. But the EU argues vigorous enforcement must continue in order to prevent Microsoft from repeating history and gaining a dominant market position through anticompetitive tactics.

One apparent flaw in the EUs logic, though, is that the antitrust regulators fail to hold mobile operating system makers like Google or Apple, Inc. (AAPL) to a similar standard. Apple -- whose iPad tablet accounts for the majority of tablet sales -- and Android -- who accounts for the majority of smartphone sales -- both only package their devices with their own proprietary built in browser. The question remains -- how is that monopoly-promoted bundling any different than what Microsoft did?

Smartphone market leader Google has not been required to provide a browser ballot to phone subscribers by the EU.

But for better or worse the EU appears content to make Microsoft its whipping boy. Microsoft will likely appeal the fine, but past appeals have largely failed.

For now Microsoft's tone was largely apologetic. In a statement it comments, "We have apologized for [the error]. We provided the Commission with a complete and candid assessment of the situation, and we have taken steps to strengthen our software development and other processes to help avoid this mistake - or anything similar - in the future."

You are choosing to ignore my points. You are deflecting it with other topics, not addressing the points I am making, even though I've responded to yours.

You went into the reason for the judgement, competition, etc. Your rebuttal is so what? Really??

Fine forget everything else.

The simple matter is MS broke the law. That's it.

Fight in court if you arent happy. Go out in the open arguing why the law should change. Get other companies and the public to back you. Get some ad campaigns out if you think you're right. A cheapo viral campaign even.

A law that only applies to one company?? Why isn't Apple forced to provide an iTunes alternative? Doesn't iOS have a huge majority "monopoly" tablet share in the EU? Why is Safari the default browser and there is NO ballot selection option?

I could think of hundreds of examples where the law is not being applied equally here.

Hide behind "the law", fine, but there should be equal protection/enforcement under the law. And that's simply NOT THERE.

quote: You're wasting my time.

Hey so go fuck off then if debating the almighty EU laws are above you. I never asked you to debate this with me.

As far as I can see Apple has a 55% market share in tablets (world http://www.abiresearch.com/press/apple-maintains-l... , can't find Europe specific stats). Also according to that their market share high was 14% higher ie 69%. Compare with the 90% market share Windows had at the time.And that's cherry picking Apple's strongest segment. Add phones to that making the ultra-mobile segment and its market share drops to less than 50%, add laptops making it a mobile segment and it falls even further.This is about using you monopoly position in the OS market to create a monopoly position in the browser market. It's fine to BE a monopoly, as long as you get there through competitive means and don't abuse that position.Apple doesn't have that position to abuse.

The "laws" in this instance is the fact they they ignored a government agency mandate and got fined.

This particular fine has nothing really to do with the original mandate/fine. This fine was for MS not abiding by the mandate - regardless of your position on the initial fine.

While I don't like the fact the that EU can just jump up and make arbitrary business restrictions and fines, M$ accepted these risks for doing business in the EU. They have problems with it now but so what? M$ accepted the risk, got fined for their behavior (part of the fine was the change to the ballot system) and they ignored or were incompetent to abide by the ballot rule so this fine is their own fault.

What if the law is flat out dumb? A Gov't should NEVER force a company to prop up a rival company. If the EU felt MS used it's monopoly unlawfully to dominate the browser market they should have given them a bigger fine then. Or even not allow MS to operate in the EU. However to continually fine them is just an abuse of power. It's also an abuse of power to force a company to promote it's competition. The EU is so blatantly wrong for this it's actually making me defend MS...think about that and realize how bad the EU is.

Are you guys reading the article? This is because of defying a previous ruling. For 15 months. In spite of warnings and cautions.

MS forced European PC manufacturers to NOT install another browser, if they wanted Windows. MS has no right to dictate what a customer should choose. They are free to offer their products, price it as they wish, (IE is free), they CANNOT restrict the take-up of competitor products, no favoured nation clauses. Make your own PCs if you want that much control.

A ruling was passed to offer the choice as the damage was done. Such a thing is hard to quantify later, so providing the choice that was "taken away" was deemed the most suitable way forward to alleviate the market distortion.

Then MS complies with the ruling with XP and Vista, and ignores it for Windows 7. They were reminded again, warned. For 15 months they ignored. Code that was already written for Vista!!

quote: MS forced European PC manufacturers to NOT install another browser, if they wanted Windows. MS has no right to dictate what a customer should choose.

Sounds like a breach of contract to me. Nothing sinister. PC manufacturers knowingly entered an agreement with Microsoft to do business, and obviously, installing third party browsers to Windows pre-sale was against the Microsoft terms of service.

Customer choice wasn't affected at all. After a PC is purchased, someone can install anything they want to it. Correct?

But, just curious, how exactly could Microsoft "force" PC manufacturers in Europe to do something? Perhaps 'force' was too strong a word.

quote: The end game for you is to concoct some story about how the EU is attacking American capitalism. Anything less wont do.

I never said this. Red herring much?

But good, I'm glad you're done. I can sleep tonight knowing I have a firm grasp on the difference between right and wrong. And that I don't need to hide behind "the law" when someone challenges my beliefs.

quote: I checked your browser stats and found it was shite.

No you just found a different source. There are at least 5 major methods used to report browser marketshare. And more than 10 different results based on method. So congratulations, we both cherry picked, what a surprise.

quote: But, just curious, how exactly could Microsoft "force" PC manufacturers in Europe to do something? Perhaps 'force' was too strong a word.

I'm sure you could find this out for yourself but let me help you. The customers want Windows so a PC maker could either chose to do what Microsoft demanded or see their customers become ex-customers.

BTW. Microsoft is having a bad week. Denmark is taking them for $1 billion in tax due to some to smart tax evasion scheme in which Microsoft did not follow the rules and tried to put a lot of profit into a tax heaven rather than pay the local taxes in Denmark (the largest Microsoft development site outside the US is in Denmark).

quote: The customers want Windows so a PC maker could either chose to do what Microsoft demanded or see their customers become ex-customers.

So again, you aren't forced. You have a choice. You can use Windows, or try and sell Linux computers or something.

I'm so sick of this anti-business mindset on here. Microsoft can't be blamed for it's own success, and it shouldn't necessarily have to be a victim to it. If you don't like the way Microsoft does things, you can go somewhere else. It's that simple.

But that's not "fair". So we cook up a bunch of BS laws and regulations. Makes me sick.

Also you need to learn the art of the "rhetorical question". I ask a lot of questions in my arguments, not because I'm a dumbass, but because I'm trying to promote thought.

What makes you think I really thought you needed the question answered? I was mocking you which should be oblivious :-)

It seems to me that you want a totally unregulated market but how you can do that is beyond me. If Microsoft had been allowed to run free there would be no Apple, IE alternatives would be crippled, Windows Media Player would be the only player and Microsoft would get a cut in every piece of media sold and that is just naming a few consequences.

In no is being anti monopoly the same as being anti-business in fact it is the opposite. By ensuring there is real competition it is ensured that new businesses get to come to life and that new ideas is coming to life. Without real competition everything slows to a crawl.